110 F. Supp. 2d 353 - Williams v. Sturm’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anders v. California · Slack v. McDaniel · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Haines v. Kerner · Hishon v. King & Spalding
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The employment of the attorney; (2) Reckless or wanton disregard of the defendant’s interest on the part of the attorney; (3) The attorney’s culpable conduct was ■the proximate cause of an injury suffered by the defendant/ plaintiff, i.e. “but for” the attorney’s conduct, the defendant/plaintiff would have obtained an acquittal or complete dismissal of the charges; (4) As the result of the injury, the criminal defendant/plaintiff suffered damages; and (5) Moreover, a plaintiff will not prevail in an action in criminal malpractice unless and until her has pursued post-trial remedies and obtained relief which was dependent upon attorney error[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.